SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for AnonymousLuser
Physicists count sound particles with quantum microphone
Stanford physicists have developed a "quantum microphone" so sensitive that it can measure individual particles of sound, called phonons.
The device, which is detailed July 24 in the journal Nature, could eventually lead to smaller, more efficient quantum computers that operate by manipulating sound rather than light.
"We expect this device to allow new types of quantum sensors, transducers and storage devices for future quantum machines," said study leader Amir Safavi-Naeini, an assistant professor of applied physics at Stanford's School of Humanities and Sciences.
First proposed by Albert Einstein in 1907, phonons are packets of vibrational energy emitted by jittery atoms. These indivisible packets, or quanta, of motion manifest as sound or heat, depending on their frequencies.
Like photons, which are the quantum carriers of light, phonons are quantized, meaning their vibrational energies are restricted to discrete values—similar to how a staircase is composed of distinct steps.
"Sound has this granularity that we don't normally experience," Safavi-Naeini said. "Sound, at the quantum level, crackles."
[...] Mastering the ability to precisely generate and detect phonons could help pave the way for new kinds of quantum devices that are able to store and retrieve information encoded as particles of sound or that can convert seamlessly between optical and mechanical signals.
Such devices could conceivably be made more compact and efficient than quantum machines that use photons, since phonons are easier to manipulate and have wavelengths that are thousands of times smaller than light particles.
"Right now, people are using photons to encode these states. We want to use phonons, which brings with it a lot of advantages," Safavi-Naeini said. "Our device is an important step toward making a 'mechanical quantum mechanical' computer."
(Score: 2) by esperto123 on Sunday July 28 2019, @08:39PM (1 child)
"phonons are easier to manipulate and have wavelengths that are thousands of times smaller than light particles."
is this statement correct? I would assume that light, with frequencies in the order of terahertz, would have wavelength many orders of magnitude lower than sound wave. I think the potential for smaller equipment wouldn't be because of the wavelength but, possibly, not not requiring cooling it to near absolute zero.
(Score: 5, Informative) by GDX on Sunday July 28 2019, @11:02PM
That is somewhat correct, the wavelength of a phonon is always going to be lower that of a photon at the same frequency. Normally when we talk about the wavelength we talk about the one used for light witch is based in the speed of light in vacuum and actually it's a simplified vision of it, but when we talk about sound its wavelength is based on the speed of sound with is much slower than the speed of light (and highly dependent on the medium).
Examples:
Wavelength: 650nm
Frequency: 460 Thz (blue ligth)
Frequency: 28.23 Ghz (sound on carbon, 18350 m/s)
Frequency: 3.4 Ghz (sound one silicon, 2200 m/s)
Frequency: 528 Mhz (sound one air, 343 m/s)
Frequency: 10 THz
Wavelength: 29.98 um (far infrared ligth)
Wavelength: 1.83 nm (sound on carbon, 18350 m/s) theoretical as i don't know frequency limit in carbon for sound.
Wavelength: 220 pm (sound one silicon, 2200 m/s) theoretical as i don't know frequency limit in silicon for sound.
Wavelength: 34 pm (sound one air, 343 m/s) actually impossible due to physics as this frequency far exceeds the frequency limit for sound in air.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday July 28 2019, @09:38PM (6 children)
When we do the "double-slit" experiment, what is a phonon to do? So much for stereo. Looks like I'm going to have to buy the "White Album" again.
(Score: 2, Funny) by fustakrakich on Sunday July 28 2019, @09:46PM
Looking for Schrödinger's Paul?
Turn me on, dead man. Turn me on, dead man...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 29 2019, @12:36AM (1 child)
Doh, do one slit as usual and use a(nother) dildo or fingers for the other slit.
The question is telling of your age, aristarchus, you started to lose memories of times you were sexually active.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday July 29 2019, @01:39AM
On the off chance that you really do not understand the reference, and are not just being a dick:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment [wikipedia.org]
Phonons should face the same indeterminancies as photons, though I can see how gender and quantum fluidity could be equally threatening for you.
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday July 29 2019, @04:47AM
My bet is no, they don't do as photons. The math may have some value, but the implying explanation is BS.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday July 29 2019, @05:56AM
Lay down the track on pure water.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday July 29 2019, @06:14AM
The same as any other quantum particle.
With only a single phonon, you won't get stereo anyway. Not to mention that you get interference already for classical sound waves.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday July 28 2019, @09:39PM (1 child)
And all that coil whine means my computer is working harder?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday July 29 2019, @06:17AM
The time when computers used vacuum tubes is long over. Sound definitely travels in solid materials.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Sunday July 28 2019, @11:48PM (2 children)
After looking at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon [wikipedia.org], my take is that phonons are nothing more than the particle equivalent of waves, which in the case of phonons, represents the propagation of mechanical waves in the lattice structure of the transducer itself (not the air through which sound waves travel). It’s just an alternative mathematical description of an already well known phenomenon.
Seems like a really big stretch to go from a “detector” to a mechanical system that can be used for storage and computation, but I’m open to more learned points of view.
I have to confess that as an EE, I’ve been conditioned to believe that as soon as you get moving parts involved in a otherwise all electrical or optical implementation, things get less reliable and slow down. Think of what happens when the HDD starts spinning on your PC. Yeah, it’s crude analogy, but you get the idea.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday July 29 2019, @12:41AM (1 child)
Don't forget the context of this equivalence (quantum mechanics). The correct form of expression is: "quantified levels of vibration modes for the lattice"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Monday July 29 2019, @10:58PM
Yes, I read the article again with my Quantum Bingo Card [tm] at hand and was able to fill in enough boxes that I cried out “BINGO” three times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 29 2019, @12:49AM
"Sound is touch at a distance."
Phonons -- hmmm -- maybe the SJWs are right and words are assaults.